A Novel Reconstruction Device for Osteonecrotic Femoral Head Efficacy Evaluation: A Randomized-controlled Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundNumerous surgical treatments to preserve hip replacements have several controversies and none of these procedures are universally accepted nor have compelling evidence for osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). With developing a novel approach osteonecrotic device surgical procedure to support the regeneration of necrotic bone and articular cartilage in vivo, this will be the first randomized-controlled feasibility study to determine its safety in ONFH patients in comparison to the core decompression surgical procedure.MethodA total of 20 patients were enrolled and randomized; 10 in the osteonecrotic device group and 10 in the core decompression group. After their baseline data has been collected and their surgical procedure has been completed, the following postoperative data are then continued to 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, one year, and two years’ before the start of their surgery. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and visual analogue scale (VAS) were collected. ResultsAll surgical procedures were performed uneventfully with no perioperative complications. Immediate pain relief in twenty patients of both groups were observed from WOMAC and VAS, however, the osteonecrotic device group had significantly lower scores throughout all periods of the follow up overall.ConclusionOsteonecrotic device procedure is a safe surgical procedure that can provide a minimally invasive endoscopic approach for direct visual examination to the lesion site. Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04103944. Registered 26 September 2019 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04103944
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".